What is the alt-right though??
Blame on both sides
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
What is the alt-right though??
No, they were not. They attended a protest that was explicitly for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech. The target was freedom of speech. They chose to take part in suppression of freedom of speech. They were not protesting against Nazism (which wasn't there) or white supremacy (which wasn't there). They were protesting against freedom of speech. More than that, they were actively suppressing freedom of speech through intimidation and plausible threat. Also, you're just assuming that the vast majority were useful idiots who didn't know what they were doing. You have no idea how many were true believers and how many were useful idiots.
You have people rallying with violent paramilitaries who are extremely authoritarian (with themselves as the authority they want, of course), who believe in the idea of thoughtcrime and who enjoy using violence and intimidation. Some of them are literally brownshirts. All of them are about as clearly fascist as it is possible to be. It's possible that some of the people who choose to rally with them in order to suppress support for freedom of speech are just useful idiots supporting something they don't really support. It's also possible that some of the people who rally with Nazis and white supremacists are just useful idiots supporting something they don't really support. The existence of useful idiots doesn't change what an ideology is or what followers of that ideology (and the useful idiots they use) do.
All 30,000 were there to protest against freedom of speech because that was the purpose and result of the protest.
Some of them might have thought that by protesting against freedom of speech they were doing something else, but that's irrelevant. They did what they did.
None of their target was Nazism or white supremacy. They were not targeting Nazism or white supremacy. They were targetting freedom of speech. Deliberately, knowingly, explicitly, specifically. That was the purpose of the protest against freedom of speech.
Although it's irrelevant since the whole point of this is to suppress dissent and compel obedience by force, to end all free speech, it's also the case that there is no such thing as the right sort of free speech. The idea that there is such a thing is itself opposition to free speech. If the only permitted speech is that which is approved by whoever has enough power and the will to use it that way, there is no freedom of speech.
Using intimidation to suppress dissent is not a form of free speech.
A useless idiot unless he's on the fashionable fascism side, the fascists who call themselves anti-fascists, because it's good propaganda material for them. But I think it's more likely he was just seeking attention and was too dumb to realise he'd get caught lying.
I don't really agree with that because it's possible to hold several positions on different matters that fall on different points of that spectrum. I've heard it referred to as more of a horse-shoe on occasion as well.
Unless I'm just schizophrenic or something by having views that are a bit scattergun..
I don't really agree with that because it's possible to hold several positions on different matters that fall on different points of that spectrum. I've heard it referred to as more of a horse-shoe on occasion as well.
Unless I'm just schizophrenic or something by having views that are a bit scattergun..
I think that in many things even the spectrum idea is an over-simplification. I think a better analogy would be a row of pendulums at different positions. Or a row of spectrums (a spectrum of spectrums?), but I think the row of pendulums is a clearer analogy.
But a spectrum is a far better idea than the sadly common idea of only two discrete (usually opposing, often only the extremes) things. Horseshoe is often a better fit than a line spectrum, since the extreme ends often end up being quite close in practice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,099
I don't know about this, the Barons rebellion leading to Magna Carta, the Civil War, the Restoration, The Glorious Revolution, The American War of Independence (English Civil War 2). We're just precocious we got it all out of the way early and have been on a steady progression since then.
Literally all of those are wars of rich white men being angry at other rich white men, with perhaps a mild exclusion of the American one... still somewhat marred by the rich folk though.
I mean serious workers revolution, the closest the country's ever been was in the middle of the 20th century and nothing really happened.
Peasant's Revolt? The Anarchy? The massive civil unrest of the early 19th century? A great deal really happened in those. Or does the phrase "worker's revolution" mean you're thinking only of Marxism/communism?
Besides, you referred to "revolution". The examples you dismiss by associating them with the "wrong" class, race and sex were revolutions. They also involved many people on both sides who weren't rich. So why don't they count?
Because ultimately the poor go home and the rich mold the future.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,099
Except most of those form fundamental steps in the route to democracy. Right to trial, requirement for evidence, limit on the power of the absolute monarch and supremacy of parliament. They laid the foundations by which workers could exercise the power without chopping off the heads of everyone you disagree with.
Almost all the peoples revolutions, France, Russia, China et al were hugely destructive. And only France could be said to have in anyway prospered but that's more in spite rather than because of.
Almost all the peoples revolutions, France, Russia, China et al were hugely destructive. And only France could be said to have in anyway prospered but that's more in spite rather than because of.
Of the examples I gave, that happened only in the Peasant's Revolt and even then there was rapid enormous change, i.e. a revolution. The end of serfdom, massive social and legal changes. Arguably the most important revolution in this country was the voting reform campaigning of the early 1800s, which was almost entirely without violence from the reformer's side. The authorities tried to suppress it with force, threat and violence (notably the Peterloo Massacre), but it succeeded because it had enough people behind it. Most of whom, of course, were not rich. There was a possibility of violent uprising and the collapse of the country, but it didn't happen. It was so successful in such a civilised manner that it's largely forgotten now, but it radically changed the country (notably the Great Reform Act of 1832, which laid the foundations for modern democracy).
If by "revolution" you mean "reign of terror and death", you're right. That's what usually happens with "successful" violent uprisings. And then the most politically astute and brutal people mould the future...and become rich.
The three revolutions of that type that come to mind are the French Revolution (which was followed by a period so bad it's known as "The Terror"), the Bolshevik revolution (which was followed by the collapse of two successive governments, a civil war, purges, then the horrors of Stalin's rule) and the Nazi revolution (which was followed by Nazism).
There was sort of an attempt at the "worker's revolution" you refer to in England - the most famous series of civil wars. Which resulted in a raving zealot riding that revolution to become dictator of England and turning it into a horror show while ravaging Ireland and laying the foundations of centuries of conflict there. Then he died and things went back to how they had been before it started and, thankfully, everyone in England agreed to pretty much pretend it never happened. Otherwise the conflict could have dragged on for generations and at least weakened the country if not ruined it entirely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,176
There was no people's revolution in china or russia or cuba for that matter. It was communist coup which relentless leftist propaganda tried to portray as a peoples revolution. France was a bloodbath that managed to execute every single member of those who started their so called revolution leaving a power vacuum that lead to the rise of the biggest imperialist of them all, Napoleon Bonaparte.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,017
This is the reason Black Lives Matter exist in America
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41274065
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41274065
Explain why black lives matter more then other lives.
Why not rally under all lives matter banner?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,017
They arent called Black lives matter more...
Anyway, semantics about their name doesn't address the issue of another white cop getting off.
Anyway, semantics about their name doesn't address the issue of another white cop getting off.
No
It doesn't but perhaps more support would be coming if they talked about all people being protected from over zealous police brutality.
Because right now in the US a lot of black people feel like their lives matter less...and seeing another cop get away with murdering a black guy...well you'd have to agree no?
- Status